Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. EMMA MONDEJAR, Accompanied by Her Husband, EFREN MONDEJAR, Respondent
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. EMMA MONDEJAR, Accompanied by Her Husband, EFREN MONDEJAR, Respondent
*
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs. EMMA
MONDEJAR, accompanied by her husband, EFREN
MONDEJAR, respondent.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
515
tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant
or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not
the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously,
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material
to the controversy.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
_______________
[1] See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated March 12, 2012; Rollo,
pp. 3-35
[2] Id., at pp. 290-292. Penned by Presiding Judge Eliseo C. Geolingo.
516
_______________
[3] Id., at pp. 306-307.
[4] Id., at pp. 145-152. Penned by Judge Francisco S. Pando.
[5] Id., at pp. 40-45.
[6] A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, effective October 1, 2008.
[7] Rollo, p. 149.
[8] Id., at p. 147.
[9] Id.
517
In defense, respondent contended that since April 1998
up to February 2003, she religiously paid petitioner the
agreed monthly flat rate of P75.00 for her water
consumption. Notwithstanding their agreement that the
same would be adjusted only upon prior notice to the
homeowners, petitioner unilaterally charged her
unreasonable and excessive adjustments (at the average of
40 cu. m. of water per month or 1.3 cu. m. of water a day)
far above the average daily water consumption for a
household of only 3 persons. She also questioned the
propriety and/or basis of the aforesaid P23,111.71 claim.[10]
In the interim, petitioner disconnected respondent’s
water line for not paying the adjusted water charges since
March 2003 up to August 2005.[11]
The MTCC Ruling
On June 10, 2011, the MTCC rendered a Decision[12]
holding that since petitioner was issued a Certificate of
Public Convenience (CPC)[13] by the National Water
Resources Board (NWRB) only on August 7, 2003, then, it
can only charge respondent the agreed flat rate of P75.00
per month prior thereto or the sum of P1,050.00 for the
period June 1, 2002 to August 7, 2003. Thus, given that
respondent had made total payments equivalent to
P1,685.99 for the same period, she should be considered to
have fully paid petitioner.[14]
The MTCC disregarded petitioner’s reliance on the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board’s (HLURB)
Decision[15] dated August 17, 2000 in HLURB Case No.
REM C6-00-001 entitled Nollie B. Apura, et al. v. Dona
Carmen I Subdivision,
_______________
[10] Id., at pp. 146-147.
[11] Id., at p. 146.
[12] Id., at pp. 145-152.
[13] Id., at pp. 191-192.
[14] Id., at p. 149.
[15] Id.
518
_______________
[16] Id., at pp. 149-151.
[17] Id., at p. 151.
[18] Id., at p. 152.
[19] Id.
[20] Id., at pp. 153-176.
519
The RTC Ruling
_______________
[21] Id., at pp. 290-292.
[22] Infra.
[23] Id., at pp. 293-305.
[24] Id., at pp. 306-307.
520
_______________
[25] Section 24, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
[26] See Republic v. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 483,
489-490, citing Republic v. Tango, G.R. No. 161062, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 560,
566-567 involving summary proceedings for petitions for the declaration of
presumptive death; see also Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 185280, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 394, 411-425, involving illegal dismissal
cases decided by the NLRC; Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[27] G.R. No. 164344, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 124, 141-142, citing Jaca
v. Davao Lumber Co., 198 Phil. 493, 517; 113 SCRA 107, 129 (1982) and Conti v.
Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 956, 965; 307 SCRA 486, 495 (1999).
521
_______________
[28] Rollo, p. 291.
[29] Dy v. Hon. Bibat-Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013,
705 SCRA 613.
522
therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that
jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC,
in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition based on
an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused
its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily
disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy.
[30]
In view of the foregoing, the Court thus finds that
petitioner correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari to
assail the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject
small claims case, contrary to the RTC’s ruling.
Likewise, the Court finds that petitioner filed the said
petition before the proper forum (i.e., the RTC). To be sure,
the Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari.[31] Such concurrence of jurisdiction, however,
does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose the
venue of his action lest he ran afoul of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. Instead, a becoming regard for judicial
hierarchy dictates that petitions for the issuance of writs of
certiorari against first level courts should be filed with the
Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the
Court of Appeals, before resort may be had before the
Court.[32] This procedure is also in consonance with Section
4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[33]
_______________
[30] Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, G.R. No. 179169, March
3, 2010, 614 SCRA 182, 192.
[31] Rayos v. The City of Manila, G.R. No. 196063, December 14, 2011,
662 SCRA 684, 689.
[32] Id.
[33] SEC. 4. When and where to file the petition.—The petition shall
be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution. x x x
If the petition relates to an act or omission of a municipal trial court or
of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as
defined by the Supreme Court. x x x
______________
[34] Sections 2 and 4 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
524
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.